Accountability Now

Some are and have had their hands slapped pretty hard. Ivermectin has been around for decades. It costs pennies and Pfizer would make zero dollars if it works. Monoclonal antibodies and remdesivir cost something like a $1,000 per dose. According to Pierre Kory, the active mechanism in remdesivir is the same as ivermectin but of course ivermectin isn't as profitable. Pfizer doesn't mind the treatments if they are the ones selling them.

You really need a cite to know that Ivermectin has been shut down? Ok.... https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/alberta-s-colleges-of-physicians-and-pharmacists-voice-concerns-over-ivermectin-prescriptions-1.5597861 You can argue with the premise that ivermectin works or doesn't but the fact is the health authorities won't even give it a chance and its not for fear of it being unsafe.

I could post you the numerous studies in favor of Ivermectin use (as shown on FLCCC) however its just easier to post this summary, especially since nothing would convince you anyway.

People wouldn't be raiding vet clinics if our health authorities didn't put a ban on doctors prescribing it.

Why not? It has been proven in vitro to eliminate the virus. It has also a number of studies that have proven a decrease in death and hospitalization. It has been proven with decades of years of use that its safe when administered properly. So again...why not? The only reason is because if people have an option of vaccine versus a safe drug then will take the latter. So the pro-vaxxers can't have that. If Ivermectin is truly what they say it is then the ideal situation would be to vaccinate those who want it and treat those who don't.

They are applying for it. Your buddies at Pfizer have made sure it won't happen. Besides, you shouldn't have to apply for Emergency Use for a drug that has decades of proven safety. As noted in the study above, they use ivermectin in chemo treatment patients. Again, this is the concept behind off label drugs

Proponents of ivermectin would strongly disagree with you on this one. A quick google search found this study. A COVID-19 prophylaxis? Lower incidence associated with prophylactic administration of ivermectin https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7698683/ I added the second part as its important to note that nothing is PROVEN right now however the correlation is strong enough to continue to examine it and have an open mind to its possible usage. Instead, vaccine proponents have done a fantastic job of smearing the idea simply because vaccines no longer get their authorization if there is any other proven method.

You are either truly disingenuous or extremely unaware of medicine in general. Off label drugs are used very commonly in the medical practice. Ivermectin is no different. https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/off-label-drug-use FDA-approved drug FDA-approved use Off-label use tamoxifen treating breast cancer treating certain causes of infertility in females spironolactone treating high blood pressure, heart failure, edema, and Conn’s syndrome treating acne vulgaris in females modafinil improving wakefulness in people with narcolepsy, obstructive sleep apnea, or shift work sleep disorder treating depression escitalopram treating depression treating bipolar disorder amitriptyline treating depression treating fibromyalgia fluoxetine treating major depressive disorder (MDD), panic disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and bulimia nervosa treating fibromyalgia venlafaxine treating MDD, panic disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and social anxiety disorder treating fibromyalgia beta-blockers treating high blood pressure, abnormal heart rhythms, angina, coronary heart disease, heart attack, migraine, and glaucoma treating anxiety

Agreed that Tamil Nadu had a slower uptake which again shows that not all areas are the same and other factors may be present. This could be true for the the case against ivermectin as well however I would disagree that the peak to base is around the same time. It looks like one month for the ivermectin states and two months for Tamil Nadu. Like you said, the ivermectin states also are managing it better ever since. As per the article (https://www.thedesertreview.com/opinion/letters_to_editor/ivermectin-saves-india/article_14b1f1d6-cd2f-11eb-8b78-9710d864f627.html)

Just to be clear, all of India did not use Ivermectin. Only certain states like Delhi, Utter Pradesh and Uttarakhand implemented it. Conversley, Tamil Nadu publicly banned the use of ivermectin. Go back to your graphic and look at the charts for those specific states and see if you notice any differences.

Of course she wouldn't. She was sorry she got caught, that's all. I have heard a few other direct anecdotes of friends who have lost family members from 'covid' even though it had nothing to do with covid. Did you hear the reporters though in the update? Their concern was that conspiracy theorists would use this slip up to push their agenda. How about ask why the F this happened and maybe start digging a big more to find the rest.

Not sure if you saw this but Hinshaw admitted their mistake and apologized for it. It really casts concerns on what these numbers truly mean https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/hinshaw-apologizes-to-family-of-14-year-old-after-saying-he-died-from-covid-19-1.6210691

To be clear, I am on that side.

Not 100% sure but CBC did report on it. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/ivermectin-covid-alberta-nagase-1.6205075

Ok...but keep in mind the UK celebrated Freedom Day on July 19th. Lifted most if not all restrictions and did away with their vaccine passport. Life has been basically returned to normal even though every day since Freedom Day, they have had 35000 cases per day. Even if Alberta relaxed its policies in the summer it wouldn't account for the drastic differences in cases, hospitalizations and ICU compared to the UK. Here's an interesting study that was just emailed to me. Increases in COVID-19 are unrelated to levels of vaccination across 68 countries and 2947 counties in the United States https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10654-021-00808-7 I don't know why the UK has the numbers they do but I think its fair to say that having a direct, single comparison to vaccinations is not accurate. We need to start focusing on all factors that contribute.

This makes more sense to me. They actually treat people to keep them from going to the hospital and will treat them in the hospital. I have no proof they are doing this but it would make sense. Yes....that is the story of the ER doctor that gave three patients ivermectin and two of the the three made dramatic turnarounds with the other one stopping the deterioration. Again, why not try it if it doesn't hurt.

So here's something that I want to know (and I'm genuinely asking both sides as it doesn't make sense). For the past few months, the UK has averaged 35,000 cases per day from a population that is ~67 million. Their hospitalizations and ICU numbers have averaged around 7,000 and 800 people per day (respectively). Per 100k people, the cases are 52.2, the hospitalizations are 10.44 and ICU rates are 1.19. (I know...crude numbers) In Alberta, we have a population of 4.5 million and are at about 1500 cases for the past month or so with an average of about 1,000 people in the hospital and 250 in ICU. Per 100k, the cases are 33.33, the hospitalizations are 22.22 and the ICU rates are 5.55. So relatively speaking, our cases are nearly nearly half but our hospitalizations are double and ICU are nearly 5 times the amount. Why the difference? Vaccination rates have been relatively similar hovering around 70% of the population for both. Granted, vaccination of 12-15 year old just started and there was always a low upatake in 16-18 year olds meaning the effective rate for the older demographics is higher than what Alberta would be. It could be vaccination rates however for the past three months the percentage of cases in the UK that are unvaccinated has got as low as 37%. This number was higher earlier in the year but as vaccines waned it dropped. Nevertheless, if we accept the 37% number then that gives us roughly 12,950 unvaccinated cases per day which is higher than the daily number of cases Canada has ever seen, never mind Alberta. From the roughly 12k unvaccinated cases being seen in the UK we would see even lower hosptialization and ICU numbers that what I showed above (which includes vaccinated). This is the same virus, same variant and affecting humans (just across the water). So why is there such a difference. I know the UK largely used AZ vaccine where Canada has focused on mRNA. Is that the reason? Or is there something more devious going on? I know the UK publishes numbers on exclusion and inclusion hospitalizations/ICU meaning they differentiate between people there because of COVID versus people in the hospital with COVID. But even that wouldn't be enough to explain this. Full disclosure, my numbers are crude and may be wrong. Or maybe I'm missing something here. Genuinely looking to wrap my head around this.

First off...I am not vaccinated and would never abuse, harass or intimidate anyone over this. I fully accept the consequences of these mandates AS ISSUED by the Chief Medical Officer of Health for our Province. What I don't agree with is any other organization or facility going above and beyond what the CMOH has implemented. For example, any youth (12-17) playing team sports is exempt from the passport requirement however the brain trust at the City of Edmonton has decided to impose restrictions that don't allow this exemption. Now the UofA sports facilities are following suit. Are they allowed to do it? Legally, yes however at what point is it considered NOT OK to follow the recommendations of the CMOH? I'm guessing the idiots that made these calls also wear a mask in the car when driving by themselves.

But even in that scenario, the raw value percentage of death for Alpha was the same as the Original (0.9%).

The chart shows their results, not how they did it. Again, if you have a link to the full study then great. If not, no big deal.

LMFAO! Page 5 shows the number of infections across the age demographic. It shows nothing about the hospitalization or death over that demographic. This is why I asked if you had a link to the full study....to see why they are making that link. By the way....thanks for glossing over the fact your study shows a lower percentage of death from Delta.

Do you know if the full study is released or is this it? The reason I ask is because they come to the conclusion that Delta is deadlier than the other strains even though it has the lowest death by percentage. So if their raw numbers are showing this it must mean they are making some lofty modifications and alterations however we don't see those. How much more dangerous? How much younger? How much healthier? Again, this is why I would like to see the full study as the numbers they show in this link only show a small increase in younger people being infected with Delta, nothing about increased hospitalization or death other than them claiming it to be so.

Assuming that study is correct (and I was clear that its not peer reviewed so I emphasize assuming), then the risk is higher to get myocarditis which is more severe than the minor symptoms they MAY get from long covid. You say it must be unpleasant AF but it could be something minor like a minor cough or muscle aches. If you are hospitalized with myocarditis then it has long term ramifications.

If you're going to cite the article I post to prove your point then you might want to read it first. As per the article I cited:

A recent (not yet peer reviewed study) out of the US is suggesting that healthy boys aged 12 to 15 are more likely to end up in the hospital from myocarditis than they are from Covid. I had seen earlier that the JCVI in the UK had recently advised against giving the shots to 12-15 year old kids as well for the very reason that the reward is not higher than the risk. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/10/boys-more-at-risk-from-pfizer-jab-side-effect-than-covid-suggests-study